About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
the tone of speaker boehner's remarks was very good. i also want to see what the substance was. what i do know is that different people heard this remark and interpret it in very different ways. grover norquist said he thought it was a good statement by speaker boehner, and other people who think we need to generate additional revenues to have a deficit reduction plan also say he made a good statement. it would be good to know exactly what he is talking about. >> how about for you? the whole premise of tax cuts, as we talked about the last 24 hours, is to eliminate deductions and bring down rates. that is what happened in 1986. >> i am talking about, what is our starting point in terms of the rates? what are we negotiating from? are we negotiating down from 35% or from 39%? i want to emphasize this point -- simpson-bowles, go look at it. they assume the amount of revenue that you would achieve if you allow the tax rate to go up. their tax reform plan is built off an assumption that you will get the amount of revenue as if he started at 39% and went down. they begin with what they call the
incomes now and ensuring security for the future. hthis is the end of vision that speaker boehner without for the country last week. i cannot think why the present would not embrace it. someone said we should go over the cliff. just go off of the cliff. hope for the best. i do not think that is what the american people had in mind when they went to the polls last week. but they had in mind is that we put the contest of the past two years behind us and work it out. the best way forward in the way that will lead to jobs and growth, a smaller deficits, and you were political fights is to keep everyone where they are. figure out a way to avoid the automatic defense cuts scheduled to hit at the end of the year without putting a penny last thing we promised and committed to the entitlement reforms that we all claim we want. a simpler tax code that lowers rates and cuts special interest loopholes would create jobs and result in more revenue without raising anyone's rates. we know this because we have seen it before. it actually works. i do not think washington should get any of that extra revenu
boehner still in the house. you are still at the treasury. the president is back in the office. harry reid is in the senate with more seats -- why should i believe this will end any more positively than the summer of 2011? >> i will not try to talk to about optimism, but let's look at what has changed. you have republican leadership acknowledging relief for the first time in this debate in public that they would agree to increase revenues as part of an agreement to help restore fiscal balance. that is a very important change. you could debate what has motivated that change, and of course it is true that that approach has very popular substantial support among the american people. you have a much greater recognition that the economy would benefit from a carefully designed balanced agreement on fiscal reform. putting that off indefinitely is not good for the country. that is important, too. i think, again, if you listen carefully to what people are saying and what many politicians are saying, there is a lot of consensus on the things that would be good for the economy now. that is98% of amer
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)